Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary

[twickster]

@olivesmarch4th

Also, along with elmwood, I’ve read through this thread to the extent possible and I still can’t figure out exactly what the proposed rules are. Can someone summarize?

Go back and read the OP. They’re stated there.

[nashiitashii]

@olivesmarch4th

Diosa, I think he’s asking for examples of jokes you think hinge on the idea of unwanted sexual contact.

@DiosaBellissima

When a woman posts a thread about her breasts causing her problem X and male Dopers come in and say they’ll hold up her breasts, exam them, etc. that’s joking about unwanted sexual contact. I mean, unless we assume the OP would WANT them to fondle her breasts, which my default is to assume that no, she wouldn’t want a bunch of strangers off of the internet fondling her breasts.

How is that anything other than a joke about unwanted sexual contact?

This was my interpretation. It’s just as creepy to have a stranger on the internet offer to touch me when it’s not warranted or welcome as it is to have Old Creepy Man offer to do it while staring lecherously at me.

@Czarcasm

Does “sexual contact” equal “sexual assault”, because the latter is the phrase currently being discussed concerning jokes?

Well, considering thatthis guy is being charged with sexual assault for groping strangers, I think we can understand where** Diosa**'s concerns re: offering to grope folks being inappropriate in the threads mentioned.

[madsircool]

@DiosaBellissima

I don’t buy into the concept that a naked woman is an inherently sexual thing and that she’s “asking for it”- whatever it may be. I don’t think most people here feel that way either. Again, mock away, but that’s a whole world of different from the implication that because she showed her reproductive organs, we get to make crude comments about wanting to fuck her.

@DiosaBellissima

As a self proclaimed feminist and rap fan, I agree with this. Without getting too ridiculous in description, I think there’s something to be said for art being allowed to be art. And yes, I do think rap-- like all forms of music-- is art. Do I think Lil Wayne was going for ‘art’ when he rapped the line, “I beat the pussy up like Emmett Till”? Probably not, but it’s not my place to draw that distinction.

So, as long as misogyny is on the form of a rap you are OK with it?

[DiosaBellissima]

@Happy_Lendervedder

And really, sexual assault is pretty serious. It’s pretty fucking serious. You sure you want to accuse other posters here of wanting to sexually assault another poster?

I’m not accusing anyone of wanting to sexually assault anyone. I’m accusing them of joking about sexually assaulting someone, which is exactly what’s happening.

@madsircool

So, as long as misogyny is on the form of a rap you are OK with it?

The hell do my musical tastes have anything to do with the moderation of this board? Seriously? Unless you’re suggesting the “show me your boobs!” posts on this board are some form of art, this has no relevance whatsoever. This is getting ridiculous.

[Marley23]

@Larry_Borgia

So, going forward, how would threads like the pantless pope protestor be modded? It doesn’t fit into any of the criteria. As i said earlier, it doesn’t really bother me and I can put it down to teething pains, but It does seem like an over-reaction.

@Shodan

If the decision is that the jokes in the pantsless Pope thread did violate one of the points, which one was it? If it was a violation of Point #2, how does one tell if a topic is “sexual” or not?

Because as I mentioned earlier, it is not clear how a thread about a pantsless woman, with designs shaved into her pubis, handing out condoms, is not sexual.

It would never occur to me that publicly exposing one’s genitalia, shaved in such a way as to attract attention, and handing out devices which are very clearly used for sex, could be considered anything other than sexual.

I believe the MPSIMS mods explained this earlier, but I’ll confirm.

[FinnAgain]

@DiosaBellissima

'm accusing them of joking about sexually assaulting someone, which is exactly what’s happening.

Cite???

[Happy_Lendervedder]

I’m not accusing anyone of wanting to sexually assault anyone. I’m accusing them of joking about sexually assaulting someone, which is exactly what’s happening.

I’ll tell you what’s not happening. You giving us a cite.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

I mean the reason I’m asking is for the most part this debate and discussion has been about misogyny and sexism and inappropriate jokes. You’re the one who brought the idea up about sexual assault.

I’ve seen the examples of misogyny and sexism and inappropriate jokes. Now I want to see what it is you’re talking about.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Marley23

The rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” What Ellen Cherry posted in the OP are the criteria we’ll use in looking at allegedly sexist posts in deciding whether they violate the rule. If the post doesn’t meet any of those points, it won’t get modded.

Thank you for clarifying. I thought a number of new rules had been proposed since the OP.

So…

1. Is it directed at another poster on this board?
Probably the most important criterion to use. Usually when these comments cross a line, it is in this way. I am not in any way threatened/offended/whatever by people publicly announcing their desire to nail the pantsless pope lady. If the pantsless pope lady was a member of this board, it would be a different story. I personally do agree that sexual comments about other posters are creepy and not perceived very differently, on an emotional level, than street harrassment.

2. Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?
This is just overkill and the part I find patently ridiculous.

**3. Is it a sexual joke in a thread on a serious sexual topic?
**This could or could not violate the rule, depending on the context. You know, to me, it would be as simple as the OP saying, ‘‘hey, knock it off,’’ and then if it wasn’t knocked off, then there would be a warning. You know, like in real life. The person doesn’t actually become an asshole until you make it clear their comments are not appreciated.

Now, am I to understand that if the post violates any of the three criteria, it will by default be considered a violation of the ‘‘don’t be a jerk’’ rule?

[Red_Barchetta]

@DiosaBellissima

This is getting ridiculous.

It doesn’t help when it starts ridiculous

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Happy_Lendervedder

And really, sexual assault is pretty serious. It’s pretty fucking serious. You sure you want to accuse other posters here of wanting to sexually assault another poster?

Q. Why is NASA’s official soft drink Sprite?
A. Because they couldn’t get 7 up.

This joke that I learned in sixth grade joked about the Challenger tragedy. FOR ALL THE POINTS: does this joke endorse the deaths of astronauts?

It’s possible to joke about something without endorsing it. It’s also possible to think that such jokes have deleterious effects and should be avoided, without thinking that the jokes endorse horrible things.

You’re continuing to conflate joking about something with endorsing it, or even committing it. That’s not a good conflation.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

As for jokes that seem to involve sexual assault: talking about how someone is a bad person and you’d like to spank her? Talking about the sex acts you’d like to perform on some random silly person who paraded around looking (arguably) sexy (assuming your tastes run toward giant silly hats)? These are not exactly scenarios in which the consent of the object is emphasized. I’m not sure whether it’s fair to call them jokes about sexual assault, but I think it’s worth looking at.

[elmwood]

@twickster

Go back and read the OP. They’re stated there.

So, what happens when this thread is long buried, and six months from now, some new user is warned for posting “Don’t get your panties in a bunch, honey.”? Do you really expect users to dig through years of ATMB threads so they know all the rules?

Hallowed SDMB tradition regardless, it’s not exactly user friendly to have rules scattered all over the place in FAQs, member agreements, and sticky and long-buried posts in various subforums. Put everything in one place. Word it in clear, concise language, not long walls o’ text.

[Marley23]

@olivesmarch4th

Now, am I to understand that if the post violates any of the three criteria, it will by default be considered a violation of the ‘‘don’t be a jerk’’ rule?

What we’re saying is that if doesn’t meet any of those criteria, it won’t get modded. If it meets some of them it’ll be handled based on the post itself and the context of the thread.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Marley23

The rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” What Ellen Cherry posted in the OP are the criteria we’ll use in looking at allegedly sexist posts in deciding whether they violate the rule. If the post doesn’t meet any of those points, it won’t get modded.

I do have a question about this. It sounds to me that someone can say something thoroughly obnoxious and sexist (“Are you still talking? Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”) and, because it lacks clear sexual components, it won’t get modded for its sexism. Surely this is incorrect, isn’t it?

What am I missing?

[Spice_Weasel]

@Marley23

What we’re saying is that if doesn’t meet any of those criteria, it won’t get modded. If it meets some of them it’ll be handled based on the post itself and the context of the thread.

Well, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

I believe the MPSIMS mods explained this earlier, but I’ll confirm.

I thought twickster said it would be OK. But then Fenris (I think - apologies if it was someone else) posted that Ellen Cherry would still have modded the pantsless Pope thread for its comments.

If Fenris is right, then, if possible, some kind of explanation as to what constitutes a “sexual” thread would be in order, IMO. Because, as I said, it would never occur to me in a million years that such a thread could be considered anything but sexual.

Because we aren’t just talking about mooning someone, or women going topless to protest something-or-other about toplessness for men but not women. We are talking about public nudity with the added factors of intentionally drawing attention to one’s pubis with designs, and handing out condoms.

These were not remarks in a medical thread about breast cancer, or periods, or whatever. These were joking remarks about an ass that the owner quite deliberately put on display, and made it a point to have spectators think about sex when they saw her. And took advantage of the sexuality of the situation to hand out condoms.

It boggles my mind that this is not obvious. Can someone explain how this is not so?

Regards,
Shodan

[colander]

@elmwood

So, what happens when this thread is long buried, and six months from now, some new user is warned for posting “Don’t get your panties in a bunch, honey.”?

I guess what happens is that they’ll know not to do it again? Not seeing the grave injustice there.

[Little_Nemo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I do have a question about this. It sounds to me that someone can say something thoroughly obnoxious and sexist (“Are you still talking? Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”) and, because it lacks clear sexual components, it won’t get modded for its sexism. Surely this is incorrect, isn’t it?

What am I missing?

That would probably be covered under the old rules of directly insulting another poster.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I do have a question about this. It sounds to me that someone can say something thoroughly obnoxious and sexist (“Are you still talking? Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”) and, because it lacks clear sexual components, it won’t get modded for its sexism. Surely this is incorrect, isn’t it?

What am I missing?

I would hope that would be modded for the same reason that some random feminist would be modded if s/he tried to silence a male poster by being dismissive and demeaning.

One would hope.

Regards,
Shodan